ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2024
Fine-Tuning Low-Dose Total Skin Electron Therapy for Optimal Management of Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma: A Comparative Analysis of Regimens.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Total skin electron beam therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Low-dose total skin electron beam therapy (TSEBT) is a proven treatment for managing cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) and Sezary syndrome with skin burden. We performed a retrospective comparison of response rates and time to progression for patients receiving low-dose TSEBT based on dose per fractionation, total dose, and stage. Methods and Materials: One hundred and ten patients with CTCL and Sezary syndrome were treated with 135 courses of low-dose (400-1500 cGy) TSEBT or subtotal skin electron therapy at multiple centers of a single institution between August 2003 and June 2023. Patients were stratified according to total dose, dose per fraction, and stage. Results: The median follow-up was 301 days (IQR, 141, 767). The median age at treatment was 69.9 years (range, 29.7-96.5). T-stage distribution was as follows: 3 (2.7%) T1, 74 (67.3%) T2, 16 (14.5%) T3, and 17 (15.5%) T4. American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition stage distribution was as follows: 3 (2.7%) IA, 53 (48.2%) IB, 3 (2.7%) IIA, 16 (14.5%) IIB, 8 (7.3%) IIIA, 19 (17.3%) IVA, and 8 (7.3%) IVB. There was no significant difference in disease distribution between patients treated with different fractionation schemes. The overall response rate was 89.6%. Forty-four courses (32.6%), 34 courses (25.2%), and 43 (31.9%) resulted in a complete, near-complete, and partial response, respectively. Fourteen courses (10.4%) resulted in no clinical response. For all patients, the median time to response was 43.0 days (IQR, 23.0-70). The median time to skin progression for all patients was 107.5 days (IQR, 67.8-233.5). Conclusions: This analysis demonstrated that CTCL patients treated with low-dose radiation therapy delivered over various fractionation schemes had similar overall response rates and median time to progression.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.